The Coalition government did wind back consumer protections from the banking royal commission, specifically targeting responsible lending obligations.
**What the Coalition did:**
In September 2020, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced plans to remove responsible lending obligations from the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (NCCP) [1].
The bill passed the Senate and became law in 2021 [3].
**The specific protections removed:**
The law eliminated the requirement for lenders to assess whether credit contracts are "unsuitable" for borrowers - the core obligation established in the NCCP Act [1].
As of March 2021, lenders could offer credit without being required to make reasonable inquiries about a consumer's financial circumstances, capacity to repay, or whether a product was appropriate for them [2].
The only exceptions were small amount credit contracts (under $2,000) and consumer leases, which retained modified responsible lending obligations [1].
**Examples of what became legal:**
Under the new rules, practices that banks had been fined for would become legal.
The Commonwealth Bank was fined $150,000 in 2020 for continuing to offer credit card limit increases to a customer who had explicitly stated he had a gambling problem and did not want more debt [4].
However, the claim requires substantial context to be understood fairly:
**The government's stated rationale:**
Frydenberg justified the changes as necessary to boost lending and economic recovery during the COVID-19 recession [1].
The government stated the changes were "implementing the most significant reforms to Australia's credit framework in a decade to increase the flow of credit to households and businesses, reduce red tape and strengthen protections for vulnerable consumers" [1].
**What the evidence actually showed about credit availability:**
Significantly, the government's claimed rationale was questionable.
Despite the professed credit crisis, lending data showed the opposite: even during Melbourne's lockdown and Australia's first recession in three decades, housing lending jumped almost 12% year-on-year in July 2020 - the biggest one-month jump in 11 years [4].
This undermines the claim that restrictive lending laws were causing a credit shortage.
**The government's alternative consumer protections:**
Frydenberg pointed to other protections as compensation: debt collectors would soon need Australian credit licenses, responsible lending remained for small amount credit contracts and consumer leases, ASIC received greater powers, product design and distribution obligations were introduced, best interest duties applied to mortgage brokers, increased financial sector penalties existed, enhanced credit card protections applied, and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) was established [1].
* * * * 關於信 guān yú xìn 貸可 dài kě 獲得性 huò dé xìng 的 de 證據 zhèng jù 實際 shí jì 顯示 xiǎn shì 的 de 內容 nèi róng : : * * * *
However, academics noted these were insufficient replacements [5]:
- AFCA's effectiveness depends on underlying law - without responsible lending obligations, AFCA's tools were limited
- APRA (the prudential regulator taking over the remaining obligations) had no history of consumer protection enforcement, while the royal commission had found APRA's consumer protection appetite "non-existent" [5]
- Mortgage broker best interest duties contradicted the removal of general responsible lending obligations, creating inconsistency [5]
**ABC News and SMH:**
Both are mainstream Australian news organizations with editorial independence and strong reputations for factual reporting [6][7].
These outlets reported the government's own announcements and provided direct quotes from officials.
這些 zhè xiē 媒體 méi tǐ 報導 bào dǎo 了 le 政府 zhèng fǔ 的 de own own 公告 gōng gào , , 並 bìng 提供 tí gōng 了 le 官員 guān yuán 的 de 直接 zhí jiē 引述 yǐn shù 。 。
The ABC article included responses from Treasurer Frydenberg defending the changes, indicating balanced reporting that included the government's perspective.
**Consumer advocates quoted in sources:**
Organizations like the Consumer Action Law Centre and academics from multiple universities provided expert analysis.
These represent legitimate stakeholder perspectives, though they are explicitly opposed to the changes.
**The sources accurately reflect what happened:**
The reporting is corroborated by multiple independent sources including parliamentary records, government statements, academic analysis, and the government's own legislation.
**The government's position was internally contradictory:**
- The government claimed a credit crunch required action, but lending data showed the opposite - credit was actually flowing freely
- The government claimed to "strengthen protections for vulnerable consumers" while removing the primary protection (lender assessment of suitability)
- The government claimed mortgage brokers' best interest duties would fill the gap, yet simultaneously removed the general responsible lending framework that made those duties meaningful
- The government said ASIC would have more power while transferring remaining responsibilities to APRA (an agency Hayne identified as having no consumer protection track record)
**However, this reflects legitimate policy disagreements:**
The Coalition's position was not that consumer protection is unimportant, but rather:
- That responsible lending obligations were excessively prescriptive
- That COVID-19's economic impact justified temporary flexibility
- That alternative mechanisms could protect consumers
- That credit flow to households and businesses was important for recovery
These are substantive policy positions, even if the evidence suggests they were misguided.
**The core problem was overriding a royal commission recommendation:**
The most significant issue is that this was the deliberate rejection of Recommendation 1.1 of the royal commission - the very first recommendation, explicitly designed to maintain consumer protections.
It was a direct contradiction of the commission's core findings that responsible lending standards were correctly calibrated and should not be weakened.
The government did introduce and pass legislation removing responsible lending obligations from the NCCP Act, which were protections established (or strengthened) following the 2008-2009 GFC and reaffirmed as necessary by the 2017-2019 Hayne Royal Commission.
The claim could have been clearer by specifying which protections (responsible lending obligations for general credit), but the substance is unquestionably correct.
最終分數
9.0
/ 10
真實
Coalition Coalition 政府 zhèng fǔ 確實 què shí 撤回 chè huí 了 le 銀行 yín xíng 皇家 huáng jiā 委員會 wěi yuán huì 的 de 消費者 xiāo fèi zhě 保護 bǎo hù 措施 cuò shī 。 。
The Coalition government did wind back consumer protections from the banking royal commission.
該 gāi 說 shuō 法 fǎ 在 zài 事實 shì shí 上 shàng 是 shì 準確 zhǔn què 的 de , , 並 bìng 得到 dé dào 充分 chōng fèn 支持 zhī chí 。 。
The claim is factually accurate and well-supported.
The government did introduce and pass legislation removing responsible lending obligations from the NCCP Act, which were protections established (or strengthened) following the 2008-2009 GFC and reaffirmed as necessary by the 2017-2019 Hayne Royal Commission.
The claim could have been clearer by specifying which protections (responsible lending obligations for general credit), but the substance is unquestionably correct.